1 Clifton Ave explanation of application after the work is completedExplanation of why the application is submitted after the work has been completed.
In June, I applied for a building permit for renovations to 1 Clifton Avenue, a 3 family unit. The work consisted of a re-do of all 3 kitchens, 2 baths, some door widening, and movement
of closets. As part of the permit process, I submitted plans created by architect Helen Sides, of Salem, plans that included every alternation to the space.
Shortly thereafter, I realized the contractor I had chosen, while competent, lacked a support team sufficient to complete the work. I found another contractor. He said he could start
work in the fall. In the meantime, electric upgrades, plumbing upgrades and HVAC upgrades began, all separately permitted by the people doing that work. In addition, I went before the
Historical Commissions 2 times, to get approval for the electrical box to be placed outside, and for permission for the condensers to be placed outside.
In October, the HVAC company told me that they had run into issues with the Historical Commission. I reached out to Patti Kelleher and by email was she kindly responded saying: I just
went through all of the pending building, electrical and plumbing permits (there are many!) and made sure that all were signed off by Historical for approved work. Please let me know
if I missed any.
Shortly thereafter I got a notification from the Building Department that my permit was approved. I honestly hadn’t realized that it wasn’t, since I’d applied almost 4 months previously.
Work commenced on the property in October, including the demo, and the replacement of a not-to-code, non-functional door. When I went to the Building Department get a physical copy
of the permit, I mentioned the contractor change. I was told that I needed to apply for a new permit, but not to worry, the Historical Commission had signed off and so I merely had
to resubmit the plans.
My contractor resubmitted the plans. The new application triggered an inquiry from the Historical Commission regarding the door. I reached out to Patti Kelleher, and she once more kindly
responded.
I understand now that I should have separately notified the Commission about the door. But I applied for the original permit in June, and was under the impression that the Historical
Commission was part of that process, such that if anything was amiss, they would let me know. For projects not described in the permit application, I have contacted the Commission 3
times since March.
In addition, the email from Patti Kelleher, which I see in retrospect I misinterpreted, led me to believe everything was fine. I had the door installed not understanding that the Building
Permit process was not a replacement for the Historical Commission process. I apologize for that. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse and I accept that.
Deahn Leblang